Chapter XIX: Book II (9)

Though some of the more potent chiefs may vie with the king in point of actual possessions, they fall very short in rank, and in certain marks of respect, which the collective body have agreed to pay the monarch. It is a particular privilege annexed to his sovereignty, not to be punctured nor circumcised as all his subjects are. Whenever he walks out, every one whom he meets must sit down till he has passed. No one is allowed to be over his head; on the contrary, all must come under his feet; for there cannot be a greater outward mark of submission, than that which is paid to the sovereign, and other great people of these islands, by their inferiors. The method is this; the person who is to pay obeisance squats down before the chief, and bows the head to the sole of his foot; which, when he sits, is so placed that it can be easily come at; and having tapped, or touched it with the under and upper side of the fingers of both hands, he rises up and retires. It should seem, that the king cannot refuse any one who chooses to pay him this homage, which is called _moe moea_; for the common people would frequently take it into their heads to do it when he was walking; and he was always obliged to stop, and hold up one of his feet behind him, till they had performed the ceremony. This, to a heavy unwieldy man, like Poulaho, must be attended with some trouble and pain; and I have sometimes seen him make a run, though very unable, to get out of the way, or to reach a place where he might conveniently sit down. The hands, after this application of them to the chief’s feet, are, in some cases, rendered useless for a time; for, until they be washed, they must not touch any kind of food. This interdiction in a country where water is so scarce, would seem to be attended with some inconvenience; but they are never at a loss for a succedaneum; and a piece of any juicy plant, which they can easily procure immediately, being rubbed upon them, this serves for the purpose of purification, as well as washing them with water. When the hands are in this state, they call it _taboo rema_. _Taboo_, in general, signifies forbidden, and _rema_ is their word for hand.

When the _taboo_ is incurred by paying obeisance to a great personage, it is thus easily washed off. But in some other cases it must necessarily continue for a certain time. We have frequently seen women, who have been _taboo rema_, fed by others. At the expiration of the time, the interdicted person washes herself in one of their baths, which are dirty holes, for the most part, of brackish water. She then waits upon the king, and after making her obeisance in the usual way, lays hold of his foot and applies it to her breast, shoulders, and other parts of her body. He then embraces her on each shoulder; after which she retires purified from her uncleanness. I do not know that it is always necessary to come to the king for this purpose, though Omai assured me it was. If this be so, it may be one reason why he is, for the most part, travelling from island to island. I saw this ceremony performed by him two or three times; and once by Feenou, to one of his own women; but as Omai was not then with me, I could not ask the occasion.

_Taboo_, as I have before observed, is a word of an extensive signification. Human sacrifices are called _tangata taboo_; and when any thing is forbidden to be eaten, or made use of, they say that it is _taboo_. They tell us, that if the king should happen to go into a house belonging to a subject, that house would be _taboo_, and could never more be inhabited by the owner; so that wherever he travels, there are particular houses for his reception. Old Toobou, at this time, presided over the _taboo_; that is, if Omai comprehended the matter rightly, he and his deputies inspected all the produce of the island; taking care that every man should cultivate and plant his quota; and ordering what should be eaten, and what not. By this wise regulation they effectually guard against a famine; a sufficient quantity of ground is employed in raising provisions; and every article thus raised, is secured from unnecessary waste.

By another prudent regulation in their government, they have an officer over the police, or something like it. This department, when we were amongst them, was administered by Feenou; whose business we were told it was to punish all offenders, whether against the state or against individuals. He was also generalissimo, and commanded the warriors, when called out upon service; but, by all accounts, this is very seldom. The king frequently took some pains to inform us of Feenou’s office; and among other things, told us that if he himself should become a bad man, Feenou would kill him. What I understood by this expression of being a bad man, was, that if he did not govern according to law or custom, Feenou would be ordered, by the other great men, or by the people at large, to put him to death. There should seem to be no doubt, that a sovereign, thus liable to be controled and punished for an abuse of power, cannot be called a despotic monarch.

When we consider the number of islands that compose this little state, and the distance at which some of them lie from the seat of government, attempts to throw off the yoke, and to acquire independency, it should seem, might be apprehended; but they tell us that this never happens. One reason why they are not thus disturbed, by domestic quarrels, may be this; that all the powerful chiefs, as we have already mentioned, reside at Tongataboo. They also secure the dependence of the other islands by the celerity of their operations; for if, at any time, a troublesome and popular man should start up in any of them, Feenou, or whoever holds his office, is immediately dispatched thither to kill him. By this means, they crush a rebellion in its very infancy.

The orders or classes amongst their chiefs, or those who call themselves such, seemed to be almost as numerous as amongst us; but there are few in comparison that are lords of large districts of territory, the rest holding their lands under those principal barons, as they may be called. I was indeed told that when a man of property dies, every thing he leaves behind him falls to the king; but that it is usual to give it to the eldest son of the deceased, with an obligation to make a provision out of it for the rest of the children. It is not the custom here, as at Otaheite, for the son, the moment he is born, to take from the father the homage and title; but he succeeds to them at his decease; so that their form of government is not only monarchical but hereditary.

The order of succession to the crown has not been of late interrupted; for we know from a particular circumstance, that the Futtafaihes (Poulaho being only an addition to distinguish the king from the rest of his family) have reigned in a direct line, for at least one hundred and thirty-five years. Upon inquiring whether any account had been preserved amongst them of the arrival of Tasman’s ships, we found that this history had been handed down to them from their ancestors, with an accuracy which marks that oral tradition may sometimes be depended upon. For they described the two ships as resembling ours, mentioning the place where they had anchored; their having staid but a few days; and their moving from that station to Annamooka. And by way of informing us how long ago this had happened, they told us the name of the Futtafaihe who was then king, and of those who had succeeded down to Poulaho, who is the fifth since that period; the first being an old man, at the time of the arrival of the ships.

From what has been said of the present king, it would be natural to suppose, that he had the highest rank of any person in the islands. But to our great surprise, we found it is not so; for Latoolibooloo, the person who was pointed out to me as king when I first visited Tongataboo, and three women, are, in some respects, superior to Poulaho himself. On our inquiring who these extraordinary personages were, whom they distinguish by the name and title of _Tammaha_[217]? we were told that the late king, Poulaho’s father, had a sister of equal rank, and elder than himself; that she, by a man who came from the island of Feejee, had a son and two daughters; and that these three persons, as well as their mother, rank above Futtafaihe the king. We endeavoured, in vain, to trace the reason of this singular preeminence of the _Tammahas_; for we could learn nothing besides this account of their pedigree. The mother and one of the daughters, called Tooeela-kaipa, live at Vavaoo. Latoolibooloo, the son, and the other daughter, whose name is Moungoula-kaipa, reside at Tongataboo. The latter is the woman who is mentioned to have dined with me on the 21st of June. This gave occasion to our discovering her superiority over the king, who would not eat in her presence, though she made no scruple to do so before him, and received from him the customary obeisance, by touching her foot. We never had an opportunity of seeing him pay this mark of respect to Latoolibooloo; but we have observed him leave off eating, and have his victuals put aside, when the latter came into the same house. Latoolibooloo assumed the privilege of taking any thing from the people, even if it belonged to the king; and yet in the ceremony called _Natche_, he assisted only in the same manner as the other principal men. He was looked upon by his countrymen, as a madman; and many of his actions seemed to confirm this judgment. At Eooa, they showed me a good deal of land, said to belong to him; and I saw there a son of his, a child whom they distinguished by the same title as his father. The son of the greatest Prince in Europe could not be more humoured and caressed than this little _Tammaha_ was.

The language of the Friendly Islands has the greatest affinity imaginable to that of New Zealand, of Wateeoo, and Mangeea; and, consequently, to that of Otaheite, and the Society islands. There are also many of their words the same with those used by the natives of Cocos Island, as appears from the vocabulary collected there by Le Maire and Schouten.[218] The mode of pronunciation differs, indeed, considerably, in many instances, from that both of New Zealand and Otaheite; but still a great number of words are either exactly the same, or so little changed, that their common original may be satisfactorily traced. The language, as spoken at the Friendly Islands, is sufficiently copious for all the ideas of the people; and we had many proofs of its being easily adapted to all musical purposes, both in song and in recitative; besides being harmonious enough in common conversation. Its component parts, as far as our scanty acquaintance with it enabled us to judge, are not numerous; and in some of its rules, it agrees with other known languages. As, for instance, we could easily discern the several degrees of comparison, as used in the Latin; but none of the inflections of nouns and verbs.

We were able to collect several hundreds of the words; and, amongst these, are terms that express numbers as far as a hundred thousand; beyond which they never would reckon. It is probable, indeed, that they are not able to go farther; for, after having got thus far, we observed that they commonly used a word which expresses an indefinite number. A short specimen, selected from the larger vocabulary, is here inserted, with the corresponding words, of the same signification as used at Otaheite, on the opposite column; which, while it will give, as we may say, ocular demonstration of their being dialects of the same language, will, at the same time, point out the particular letters by the insertion, omission, or alteration of which the variations of the two dialects from each other have been effected.

It must be observed, however, that our vocabularies of this sort must necessarily be liable to great mistakes. The ideas of those from whom we were to learn the words were so different from ours, that it was difficult to fix them to the object of inquiry. Or, if this could be obtained, to learn an unknown tongue from an instructor who did not know a single word of any language that his scholar was conversant with, could not promise to produce much. But even, when these difficulties were surmounted, there still remained a fruitful source of mistake. I mean, inaccuracy in catching exactly the true sound of a word to which our ears had never been accustomed, from persons whose mode of pronunciation was, in general, so indistinct, that it seldom happened that any two of us, in writing down the same word from the same mouth, made use of the same vowels in representing it. Nay, we even very commonly differed about consonants, the sounds of which are least liable to ambiguity. Besides all this, we found, by experience, that we had been led into strange corruptions of some of the most common words, either from the natives endeavouring to imitate us, or from our having misunderstood them. Thus, _cheeto_ was universally used by us to express a thief, though totally different from the real word in the language of Tongataboo. The mistake arose from a prior one into which we had ran when at New Zealand; for though the word that signifies thief there, be absolutely the same that belongs to the dialect of the Friendly Islands (being _kaeehaa_ at both places), yet, by some blunder, we had used the word _teete_ first at New Zealand, and afterward at Tongataboo, on our arrival there. The natives, endeavouring to imitate us as nearly as they could, and so fabricating the word _cheeto_, this, by a complication of mistakes, was adopted by us as their own. All possible care has been taken to make the following table as correct as possible:

English. _Friendly Islands._ _Otaheite._

_The sun_, Elaa, Eraa.

_Fire_, Eafoi, Eahoi.

_Thunder_, Fatoore, Pateere.

_Rain_, Ooha, Eooa.

_The wind_, Matangee, Mataee.

_Warm_, Mafanna, Mahanna.

_The clouds_, Ao, Eao.

_Land_, Fonooa, Fenooa.

_Water_, Avy, Evy.

_Sleep_, Mohe, Moe.

_A man_, Tangata, Taata.

_A woman_, Vefaine, Waheine.

_A young girl_, Taheine, Toonea.

_A servant_, or
_person of mean
rank_, Tooa, Toutou, _or_ teou.

_The dawn_, or
_day-break_, Aho, Aou.

_The hair_, Fooroo, Eroroo.

_The tongue_, Elelo, Erero.

_The ear_, Tareenga, Tareea.

_The beard_, Koomoo, Ooma.

_The sea_, Tahee, Taee.

_A boat_, or
_canoe_, Wakka, Evaa.

_Black_, Oole, Ere.

_Red_, Goola, Oora, oora.

_A lance or spear_, Tao, Tao.

_A parent_, Motooa, Madooa.

_What is that?_ Kohaeea? Yahaeea?

_To hold fast_, Amou, Mou.

_To wipe or clean
any thing_ Horo, Horoee.

_To rise up_, Etoo, Atoo.

_To cry or shed
tears_, Tangee, Taee.

_To eat_ or _chew_, Eky, Ey.

_Yes_, Ai, Ai.

_No_, Kaee, Aee.

_You_, Koe, Oe.

_I_, Ou, Wou.

_Ten_, Ongofooro, Ahooroo.

Having now concluded my remarks on these islands and people, I shall take my final leave of them, after giving some account of the astronomical and nautical observations that were made during our stay.

And first I must take notice, that the difference of longitude between Annamooka and Tongataboo, is somewhat less than was marked in the chart and narrative of my last voyage. This error might easily arise, as the longitude of each was then found without any connection with the other. But now the distance between them is determined to a degree of precision that excludes all possibility of mistake; which the following table will illustrate:

The latitude of the observatory at Tongataboo, by
the mean of several observations, 21° 8ʹ 19ʺ south.

The longitude, by the mean of one hundred and
thirty-one sets of lunar observations, amounting
to above a thousand observed distances, between
the moon, sun, and stars, 184° 55ʹ 18ʺ east.

The difference of longitude, made by the
time-keeper, between the above observatory, and
that at Annamooka, 0 16 0

Hence, the longitude of Annamooka is 185 11 18 east.

By the time-keeper it is, Greenwich rate, 186 12 27

New Zealand rate, 184 37 0

Its latitude 20 15 0

N. B.—The observatory at Tongataboo was near the middle of the north side of the island; and that it Annamooka, on its west side; but the chart will elucidate this.

The time-keeper was too slow for mean time at Greenwich, on the first of July at noon, by 12^h 34^m 33^s,2; and her daily rate, at that time, was loosing, on mean time, 1^m,783 _per_ day. This rate will now be used for finding the longitude by the time-keeper; and 184° 55ʹ 18ʺ, or 12^h 19^m 41^s,2, will be taken as the true longitude of Tongataboo, east from Greenwich.

By the mean of several observations, the south end of the needle was found to dip

{Lefooga, one of the Hapaee
At { islands, 36° 55ʹ
{Tongataboo, 39 1-1/2

The variation of the compass was found to be,

{Annamooka, on board, 8° 30ʹ 3-1/2ʺ east.
{Anchor off Kotoo, between }
At { Annamooka and Hapaee, } 8 12 29-1/2
{Anchor off Lefooga, 10 11 40
{Tongataboo, on board, 9 44 5-1/2
{Ditto, on shore, 10 12 58

The variation of the compass was found to be,

I can assign no reason why the variation is so much less at and near Annamooka, than at either of the other two places. I can only say, that there is no fault in the observations; and that the variation ought to be more at Annamooka than the above, as it has been found to be so to the northward, southward, eastward, and westward of it. But disagreements in the variation, greater than this, even in the same needle, have been often observed. And I should not have taken notice of this instance, but from a belief that the cause, whatever it is, exists in the place, and not in the needles; for Mr. Bayly found the same, or rather more difference.

The tides are more considerable at these islands, than at any other of my discoveries in this ocean, that lie within the tropics. At Annamooka it is high water, on the full and change days, nearly at six o’clock; and the tide rises and falls there, upon a perpendicular, about six feet. In the harbour of Tongataboo, it is high water, on the full and change days, at fifty minutes past six. The tide rises and falls on those days, four feet nine inches; and three feet six inches at the Quadratures. In the channels between the islands, which lie in this harbour, it flows near tide and half-tide; that is, the flood continues to run up near three hours, after it is high water by the shore; and the ebb continues to run down, after it is flood by the shore. It is only in these channels, and in a few other places near the shores, that the motion of the water or tide is perceivable; so that I can only guess at the quarter from which the flood comes. In the road of Annamooka, it sets west south-west, and the ebb the contrary; but it tails into the harbour of Tongataboo from the north-west, passes through the two narrow channels, on each side of Hoolaiva, where it runs with considerable rapidity, and then spends itself in the _lagoon_. The ebb returns the same way, and runs with rather greater force. The north-west tide is met at the entrance of the _lagoon_, by one from the east; but this, as I have before observed, was found to be very inconsiderable.

END OF THE FIFTH VOLUME.

LONDON:

Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode,
New-Street-Square.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:

Two voyages for discovering a North-West passage, through Hudson’s
Bay, were then performed; one under the command of Captain Middleton,
in his Majesty’s ships the Furnace, and the Discovery Pink, in 1741
and 1742; the other under the direction of Captains Smith and Moore,
in the ships Dobbs and California, fitted out by subscription, in 1746
and 1747.

Footnote 2:

Captain, now Admiral, Byron had under his command the Dolphin and
Tamer. He sailed in June, 1764, and returned in May, 1766.

Footnote 3:

Captain Wallis had under his command the Dolphin and Swallow. He
sailed in August, 1766, and returned, with the Dolphin, in May, 1768.

Footnote 4:

The Swallow, commanded by Captain Carteret, having been separated from
Wallis, and, by keeping a different route, having made different
discoveries, this may be considered as a distinct voyage. The Swallow
returned to England in March 1769.

Footnote 5:

Captain Cook, in the Endeavour, sailed in August 1768, and returned in
July, 1771.

In his second voyage, he had the Resolution and Adventure under his
command. They sailed from England in July, 1772, and returned on the
30th of July, 1775.

Footnote 6:

The account of the four first of these voyages, compiled by Dr.
Hawkesworth, from the Journals of the several commanders, was
published in 1772, in three volumes quarto; and Captain Cook’s own
account of the fifth, in 1777, in two volumes quarto.

Footnote 7:

See Lord Anson’s Voyage, quarto edition, p. 91.

Footnote 8:

These are Captain Cook’s words, _Introduction to his Voyage_, vol.
iii. p. 7.; and the evidence on which he forms this judgment may be
met with in Hawkesworth’s Journal of Byron’s Voyage, vol. i. p. 23,
24, 51, 52, 53, 54.

Footnote 9:

See the Chart of Discoveries in the South Atlantic. Cook’s Voyage,
vol. iv. p. 211.

Footnote 10:

Magalhaen’s Voyage was undertaken in 1519.

Footnote 11:

See the particulars of their discoveries in Mr. Dalrymple’s valuable
Collection of Voyages in the South Pacific Ocean.

Footnote 12:

Bougainville, in 1768, did no more than discover that the land here
was not connected but composed of islands. Captain Cook, in 1774,
explored the whole group. See vol. iv. p. 88.

Footnote 13:

Vol. iv. p. 219.

Footnote 14:

See vols. i. and ii.

Footnote 15:

See vol. ii. p. 69.

Footnote 16:

Vol. iii. chap. 7.

Footnote 17:

Vol. ii. p. 202.

Footnote 18:

From October 6. 1769, to March 31. 1770.

Footnote 19:

Its southern extremity nearly in latitude 47°, and its northern in
35-1/2°. See Captain Cook’s chart, in Hawkesworth, vol. ii. p. 281.

Footnote 20:

See the track of Torré, in one of Quiros’s ships, in 1606, between New
Holland and New Guinea, upon Mr. Dalrymple’s Chart of Discoveries in
the South Pacific Ocean, before 1764.

Footnote 21:

M. de Brosses says of New Guinea: “C’est une longue isle, ou presqu’
isle, si elle touche à la Nouvelle Hollande.” _Navigations aux Terres
Australes_, tom. i. p. 434.

Footnote 22:

“Le triste état où nous étions réduits, ne nous permettoit de chercher
en faisant route a l’ouest, un passage au sud de la Nouvelle Guinée,
qui nous frayât par le Golfe de la Carpenterie une route nouvelle &
courte aux iles Moluques. _Rien n’étoit à la vérité plus problématique
que l’existence de ce passage._” Voyage autour du Monde, p. 259.

Footnote 23:

Hawkesworth, vol. iii. p. 660.

Footnote 24:

Hawkesworth, vol. i. p. 563.

Footnote 25:

The position of the Solomon Islands, Mendana’s celebrated discovery,
will no longer remain a matter in debate amongst geographers, Mr.
Dalrymple having, on the most satisfactory evidence, proved, that they
are the cluster of islands which comprizes what has since been called
New Britain, New Ireland, &c. The great light thrown on that cluster
by Captain Carteret’s discovery, is a strong confirmation of this. See
Mr. Dalrymple’s Collection of Voyages, vol. i. p. 16-21.

Footnote 26:

It must be observed, however, that Monsieur le Monier, in the Memoirs
of the French Academy of Sciences for 1776, pleads for the existence
of Cape Circumcision, seen by Bouvet in 1738, which our English
navigator sought for in vain, and supposes to have been only an island
of ice. Mr. Wales, in a paper read before the Royal Society, very
forcibly replied to M. le Monier’s objections; and the attack having
been repeated, he has drawn up a more extended defence of this part of
Captain Cook’s Journal, which he hath very obligingly communicated,
and is here inserted.

_Arguments, tending to prove that Captain Cook sought for Cape
Circumcision under the proper Meridian; and that the objections which
have been made to his conduct, in this respect, are not well founded._

In the Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris for 1776,
printed in 1779, _M. Le Monier_ has made some remarks with a design to
show that Captain Cook sought the land, usually called Cape
Circumcision, in a wrong place; and that, instead of looking for it
under the meridian of 9-1/2° or 10° of east longitude, he ought to
have looked for it under a meridian which is only 3°, or 3-1/2° to the
eastward of the meridian of Greenwich; and consequently that this land
may exist, notwithstanding all that has yet been done to find it. _M.
Le Monier_ has also two additional Memoirs on the same subject, in the
volume for 1779, occasioned, as it appears, by some objections which
have been made to his former Memoir before the Academy. For some
reason or other, the Academy has not thought proper to print the
objections which have been made to _M. Le Monier_’s hypothesis; nor
has he been particular enough in his two Memoirs which reply to them,
to enable me to say of what importance the objections are. I can only
gather, that they contain some exceptions to the quantity by which _M.
Le Monier_ asserts the variation alters in 10° of longitude, under the
parallel of 54° south; and which, I conceive, has little to do in the
dispute.

Whether the land, usually called Cape Circumcision, exists or not, is
a point of small importance to geography; as the most strenuous
asserters of its existence must allow it to be a very inconsiderable
island, and of no use. This, therefore, is not in itself a matter
worthy of dispute; but in asserting this, _M. Le Monier_ has, and I am
sorry to observe it, with some asperity too, particularly in his
second Memoir, endeavoured to censure the judgment and conduct of
Captain Cook, whose memory I have every reason to revere, as well as
the judgment of those who were with him; and, on this account, I
cannot help feeling myself called on to explain the motives which
induced _Captain Cook_ to place no dependence on the arguments now
adduced by _M. Le Monier_ in support of his supposition; and which,
_M. Le Monier_ must know, were not unattended to at that time, from
what the Captain has said, p. 236. Vol. II. of his account of the
voyage. And it may be proper to observe here, that what fell from
_Captain Cook_ on this subject, was to show that this circumstance was
then attended to, and not to throw blame on _M. Bouvet_, for whose
memory and abilities _Captain Cook_ entertained great respect: nor is
it incompatible with the utmost respect, for a man to have a
favourable opinion of his own labours; or to endeavour to show why he
thinks the disagreement between them and those of another person, when
there is one, does not arise from an error committed by himself. There
could, therefore, be no occasion for _M. Le Monier_ to express himself
as he has done in several parts of his second Memoir.

The substance of _M. Le Monier_’s argument is this. In 1739, when _M.
Bouvet_’s discovery is supposed to have been made, the methods for
determining the longitude of a ship at sea were very defective; and,
of course, the longitude of any land which happened accidentally to be
seen by one, was equally uncertain. On a presumption that this was the
case with respect to Cape Circumcision, _M. Le Monier_ enquires into
the quantity of the variation of the magnetic needle, observed by M.
Bouvet at that place, and also into observations of the same kind,
made at other places in the neighbourhood of it, about the same time,
as well as both before and since. And by comparing these observations
together, he concludes, that at the time when Captain Cook was in
these seas, the variation of the needle at Cape Circumcision must have
been 10° westerly: whereas, in the most westerly point of Captain
Cook’s track, where he was sufficiently near the parallel of 54°
south, to have seen land situated in it, the variation was 13-1/2°
westerly. This difference of 3-1/2°, in the variation, answers to
about 7° of longitude, in this part of the parallel of 54° south: and
by so much did Captain Cook fall in with this parallel to the eastward
of what he ought to have done to see the land in question. “Hence (M.
Le Monier infers), that it is not surprising the British navigator
should not find Cape Circumcision under a meridian which is 28-1/2° to
the eastward of Ferro, when it is really situated under a meridian
which is but 21-1/2° to the eastward of it.”

In replying to these allegations, I shall first show, that, granting
the dependence which _M. Le Monier_ supposes may be placed on
observations of the variation made at sea, he has stated the quantity
of the variation observed on board the Resolution, very erroneously.

Secondly, I shall prove, beyond contradiction, that observations of
the variation, made at sea, cannot be depended on for the purposes to
which _M. Le Monier_ has applied them.

And, lastly, that no material error had crept into _M. Bouvet_’s
reckoning; but that if any error did exist, it must have been of a
contrary nature to that which _M. Le Monier_ supposes.

That _M. Le Monier_ has not given altogether a true representation of
the matter, will appear from hence. On the 16th of February, at
noon[27], the Resolution was in latitude 54° 31-1/2ʹ south, which is
sufficiently near the parallel of 54° south, to see high land, the
northern extremity of which lies to the southward of that parallel;
and at that time we were in 6° east of Greenwich, or 23-3/4° east of
the island of Ferro: that is, 4-3/4° less than is assigned for our
situation by _M. Le Monier_. On the evening of the same day, the ship
being in latitude 54° 24ʹ, and longitude 6° 30ʹ, or 24-1/4° east of
Ferro, the variation was no more than 12° 7ʹ west, which also is near
a degree and a half less then _M. Le Monier_ says it was, when we
first arrived in a proper parallel for seeing Cape Circumcision. It is
true, the next morning, in latitude 54° 21-1/2ʹ south, longitude 8° 6ʹ
east, we had 13° 42ʹ west variation; but this was after we had run
more than two degrees within sight of the parallel of 54° south. It
is, moreover, highly probable, that both these variations were too
great; for, on the 17th, in the evening, latitude 54° 25ʹ south, and
longitude 9° 20ʹ east; that is, 1-1/4° more to the eastward, and after
we had run 3-1/3° on the parallel we were then on, the variation was
no more than 13° 16ʹ west. It is also worthy of remark, that on the
14th, in the evening, latitude 56° 14-1/2ʹ south, and longitude 4° 50ʹ
east, which is but 1° 10ʹ to the westward of the point, where the
Resolution came first into a proper situation to see land, situated in
the parallel of 54° south, the variation observed was no more than 6°
50ʹ west. And we may further add, that on the 1st of March, 1774, the
Adventure had no more than 12-3/4° west variation, though she was then
considerably both to the northward and eastward of our situation on
the 17th of February in the morning, on both which accounts the
variation ought to have been greater, instead of a whole degree less.
From all these circumstances, there can be little doubt but that the
two variations, observed by us on the 16th and 17th of February, were
too great; or that the variation, at the point where the Resolution
first came sufficiently near the parallel of 54° south, to see land,
the northern extremity of which is situated in that parallel, could
not be more than 11-1/2° west, instead of 13-1/2°, as _M. le Monier_
has represented it.

Under this head of enquiry, I may also observe, that, although the
Resolution was too much to the southward of the parallel of 54° south,
when she crossed the meridian which is 21-1/2° to the eastward of
Ferro, that is, 3-3/4° east of Greenwich, the longitude which _M. Le
Monier_ assigns for Cape Circumcision, to see if it had been in that
situation, yet her consort, the Adventure, was for several degrees on
each side of that meridian; and especially when she had 10-1/2° of
west variation, full as near to the parallel of 54° south as _M.
Bouvet_ was to the land when he saw it[28]; and on the day that she
actually passed that meridian, had fine clear weather.[29] Hence,
therefore, granting _M. Le Monier_ his own arguments, which, however,
I have proved to be erroneous, and that observations made at sea, for
the variation of the compass, may be depended on for the purpose of
finding the longitude, it is utterly impossible that both the
Resolution and Adventure could have passed Cape Circumcision without
seeing it. But I shall now show, that these observations are liable to
a much greater error than the whole quantity, so vigorously insisted
on by this gentleman.

I will not here run the risk of incurring _M. Le Monier_’s
displeasure, by calling the accuracy of _M. Bouvet_’s observations in
question; but will admit every thing that he himself can think due to
the instruments and observations of that deserving navigator. It is
enough for my argument, and it is but too evident from the
observations themselves, that ours were by no means capable of
determining the variation to so small a quantity as that which _M. Le
Monier_ rests his whole cause upon; and if so, his arguments, which
depend wholly on a supposition, that not only they, but _M. Bouvet_’s
also, were capable of determining it with the utmost exactness, must
fall to the ground.

1st, It appears, from various instances, that the variations observed
by the same compass would differ 3° to 5°, 6°, and sometimes even 10°,
from no other cause whatever, but putting the ship’s head a contrary
way.[30]

2d, That the same compass, in the same situation in every respect,
within a few miles, but at two different times of the same day, would
give variations differing from one another, 3°, 4°, 5°, 6°, and even
7°[31].

3d, That the same compass, on the same day, and in the hands of the
same observer, will give variations differing from one another by 5°,
on board the same ship, when under sail, and when at anchor in a
road-stead.[32]

4th, Compasses made by the same artists at the same time and place,
but on board different ships, differed 3°, 4°, and even 5° in the
variation.[33]

5th, The same compasses, on board the same ship, and within a few
miles of the same situation, but at different times of our being
there, gave variations differing by 4° and 5°, or upwards.[34]

6th, Different compasses, at the same time, on board the same ship,
and in every respect under the same circumstances, will give
variations differing from one another, 3°, 4°, 5°, and 6°.[35]

These differences, several of which happened very near the place in
question, are all of them at least equal to, most of them much
greater, and some of them double that which _M. Le Monier_ founds his
argument on, even according to his own account of it, which I have
already shown is by no means admissible, and, therefore, totally
invalidate it. To allege that the instruments made use of in Captain
Cook’s two voyages were bad, or that the observers were not expert in
the use of them, will answer no purpose: they are the instruments and
observers which _M. Le Monier_’s argument must rest on; and,
therefore, let those of the French, or any other navigator, have been
ever so much better than they were (which few will be hardy enough to
assert, and fewer still found weak enough to believe), it will avail
nothing to the point in dispute, which must evidently fall to the
ground, if the observations made for finding the variation in Captain
Cook’s voyage are not sufficient to support it. What then must become
of it, if _M. Bouvet_’s observations, of this kind, were liable to an
equal, or a greater error? which, without any reasonable cause for
offence, we might suppose they were.

It is not necessary to account for these differences in the observed
variations in this place, nor yet to point out the reasons why such
anomalies have not been noticed in observations of this kind before. I
shall, however, remark, that I have hinted at some of the causes in my
introduction to the observations which were made in Captain Cook’s
second voyage; and many others will readily offer themselves to
persons who have had much practice in making these observations, and
who have attentively considered the principles on which the
instruments are constructed, and the manner in which they are
fabricated. Nor is it at all surprising, that the errors to which the
instruments and observations of this kind are liable, should not have
been discovered before, since no navigators before us ever gave the
same opportunity, by multiplying their observations, and making them
under such a variety of circumstances as we did.

Having now fully shown, that the circumstances, brought forward by _M.
Le Monier_, in support of his argument, are neither such as can be
depended on, nor yet fairly represented, I shall next attempt to
demonstrate, that it is utterly improbable M. Bouvet could be out, in
his account of longitude, so much as is here supposed, in the short
run which had been made from the island of St. Catherine, the place
they took their departure from: on the contrary, that there is
sufficient reason to believe the error, of whatever magnitude it might
be, was of a different nature from that contended for, and that the
two ships, instead of being to the westward of their account of
longitude, were actually to the eastward of it. For according to their
journals, extracted from the archives of the French East-India
Company, by _M. D’ Apres_, printed under his inspection, and published
by Mr. Dalrymple, F. R. S. amongst other voyages made for the purpose
of examining the southern parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the longitude,
according to the Eagle’s run from St. Catherine’s, was, 26° 27ʹ, and
according to the Mary’s, 26° 20ʹ east of Teneriff; that is, 9° 57ʹ,
and 9° 50ʹ east of Greenwich, or 27° 43ʹ, and 27° 36ʹ east of Ferro.
But the Mary, which went to the Cape of Good Hope, made 7° 13ʹ east
longitude from the land in question, to that place. Consequently the
Cape of Good Hope being in longitude 18° 23ʹ east of Greenwich, Cape
Circumcision will be in 11° 10ʹ east of Greenwich, or 1° 20ʹ more to
the eastward than the run by the same ship from the island of St.
Catherine’s makes it. Again the Eagle made the difference of longitude
between Cape Circumcision and the island of Rodrigues 49° 44ʹ; and by
the observations of _M. Pingre_, this island is in 62° 50ʹ of east
longitude from Greenwich: Cape Circumcision is therefore in 13° 6ʹ
east of Greenwich, or 2° 9ʹ more to the eastward than by the Eagle’s
run from St. Catherine’s. Hence, therefore, as the longitude of this
land resulting from a comparison of that shown by each of the ships,
on their making land at places where the longitude is exceedingly well
determined, is greater than that which results from their run from St.
Catherine’s, the longitude of which is not known with certainty within
several degrees, we may infer, with great safety, that whatever the
quantity of M. Bouvet’s error might be, when he is supposed to have
seen Cape Circumcision, it must have been in defect, and not in
excess, as _M. Le Monier_ supposes it.

CHRIST’S HOSPITAL,
April 20. 1784. W. WALES.

Footnote 27:

I here go by the dates in “The Original Astronomical Observations,”
printed by order of the Board of Longitude; which, after the 14th of
February, 1775, differ one day from Captain Cook’s date.

Footnote 28:

See The Original Astronomical Observations, p. 185., and Bouvet’s
Voyage, published by Mr. Dalrymple, p. 4. and 11.

Footnote 29:

See the Observations p. 218.

Footnote 30:

See the Original Astronomical Observations, made in the second voyage,
March 11. 1773, p. 372., January 24. 1774, p. 375., and July 28. p.
378.

Footnote 31:

Observations in the second voyage, February 2. 1773, p. 371., and
January 19. 1775, p. 382. Also observations in last voyage, July 17.
1776, p. 179 August 30. p. 131., January 24. 1777, p. 192., and
September 15. 1778 p. 205.

Footnote 32:

Astronomical Observations of second voyage, July 14. 1775, p. 385.

Footnote 33:

Compare the Astronomical Observations, made in the second voyage,
August 8. and 9. and September 4. 1772, p. 181., with those of the
same dates, p. 369. Those of January 11. and 14. and February 7. 1773,
p. 182., with those of the same dates, p. 371. Also Astronomical
Observations, made in the last voyage, of December 27. 1776, p. 191,
February 22. 1778, p. 201., May 5. and 8. p. 102, July 9. and 24.
1779, p. 209., and January 16. 1780, p. 212., with those of the same
dates, p. 291., 293., 294., 297., and 298.

Footnote 34:

Compare Astronomical Observations, made in the second Voyage, February
10. p. 375., with Observations of December 11. 1774, p. 381. Also
Observations made in the last Voyage, May 3. and June 18. 1779, p.
208.

Footnote 35:

Observations made in the second Voyage, February 2. 1773. p. 371.
March 18. p. 372., and January 24. 1774, p. 375. See also Observations
made last Voyage, August 18. 1776, p. 180. October 7. and 14. p. 189,
and 190. December 12. p. ibid. January 24. 1777, p. 192. March 10. p.
195. July 9. and 17. 1779, p. 209. January 16. 1780, p. 212. March 24.
p. 213. and May 19. p. 214.

Footnote 36:

The judgment of the ingenious Author of _Recherches sur les
Américains_, on this question, seems to be very deserving of a place
here: “Qu’on calcule, comme on voudra, on sera toujours contraint
d’avouer, qu’il y a une plus grande portion de continent située dans
la latitude septentrionale, que dans la latitude australe.

“C’est fort mal à-propos, qu’on a soutenu que cette répartition
inégale ne sauroit exister, sous prétexte que le globe perdroit son
équilibre, faute d’un contrepoids suffisant au pole méridionale. Il
est vrai qu’un pied cube d’eau salée ne pese pas autant qu’un pied
cube de terre; mais on auroit dû réfléchir, qu’il peut y avoir sous
l’ocean des lits & des couches de matières, dont la pésanteur
spécifique varie à l’infini, & que le peu de profondeur d’une mer,
versée sur une grande surface, contrebalance les endroits où il y a
moins de mer, mais où elle est plus profonde.” _Recherches
Philosophiques_, tom. ii. p. 375.

Footnote 37:

See Vol. IV. p. 219.

Footnote 38:

See the history of former attempts to sail toward the north pole, in
the introduction to Lord Mulgrave’s Journal. Mr. Barrington has
collected several instances of ships advancing to very high latitudes.
See his Miscellanies, p. 1-124.

Footnote 39:

See the Statutes at Large, 18 George II. chap. 17.

Footnote 40:

See the Statutes at Large, 1776, 16 George III. chap. 6.

Footnote 41:

From his MS. Instructions, dated May 14. 1776.

Footnote 42:

In the Philosophical Transactions, Vol. lxviii. p. 1057, we have the
track of Pickersgill’s voyage, which, probably, may be of use to our
Greenland ships, as it contains many observations for fixing the
longitude and latitude of the coasts in Davis’s Straits. But it
appears that he never entered Baffin’s Bay, the highest northern
latitude to which he advanced being 68° 14ʹ. As to Young’s
proceedings, having failed absolutely in making any discovery, it is
of less consequence, that no communication of his journal could be
procured.

Footnote 43:

See the Abstract of his Journal, published by Mr. Dobbs.

Footnote 44:

Ellis’s Voyage, p. 328.

Footnote 45:

Ibid. p. 330.

Footnote 46:

Account of the voyage, by the clerk of the California, Vol. ii. p.
273. Mr. Dobbs himself says, that _he thought the passage would be
impracticable, or, at least, very difficult, in case there was one
farther North than 67°_.—Account of Hudson’s Bay, p. 99.

Footnote 47:

Printed for Jeffreys, in 1768. His words are, “There remains then to
be searched for the discovery of a passage, the opening called Pistol
Bay, in Hudson’s Bay.” P. 122.

Footnote 48:

Mr. Hearne’s Journey, back from the Copper-mine river, to Fort Prince
of Wales, lasted till June 30. 1772. From his first setting out till
his return, he had employed near a year and seven months. The
unparalleled hardships he suffered, and the essential service he
performed, met with a suitable reward from his masters, and he is now
the Governor of Fort Prince of Wales, where he was taken prisoner by
the French in 1782; and last summer returned to his station.

Footnote 49:

The Hudson’s Bay Company have a trading post called _Hudson’s House_,
above five hundred miles up the country, in lat. 53° 0ʹ 32ʺ, and in
long. 106° 27ʹ 30ʺ.

Footnote 50:

This day, Jan. 11. 1772, as the Indians were hunting, some of them saw
a strange snow-shoe track, which they followed, and at a considerable
distance came to a little hut, where they found a young woman sitting
alone. They brought her to the tents; and, on examining her, found
that she was one of the western _Dog-ribbed_ Indians, and had been
taken prisoner by the _Arathapescow_ Indians in the summer 1770; and,
when the Indians who took her prisoner, were near this part in the
summer 1771, she eloped from them, with an intent to return to her own
country; but _it being so far off_, and, after being taken prisoner,
having come the whole way in canoes, with the winding of rivers and
lakes, she had forgot the way; and had been in this little hut ever
since the first setting in of the fall. By her account of the moons
past since her elopement, it appears to be the middle of last July
when she left the Arathapescow Indians, and had not seen a human face
ever since. She supported herself very well by snaring of rabbits,
partridges, and squirrels, and was now in good health and flesh; and,
I think, as fine a woman of a real Indian, as I have seen in any part
of North America. She had nothing to make snares of but the sinews of
rabbits’ legs and feet, which she twisted together for that purpose;
and of the rabbits’ skins had made herself a neat and warm winter’s
clothing. The stock of materials she took with her when she eloped,
consisted of about five inches of an iron hoop for a knife; a stone
steel, and other hard stones as flints, together with other
fire-tackle, as tinder, &c.; about an inch and half of the shank of
the shoeing of an arrow of iron, of which she made an awl. She had not
been long at the tents, when half a score of men wrestled to see who
should have her for their wife. She says, when the Arathapescow
Indians took her prisoner, that they stole on the tents in the night,
when the inhabitants were all asleep, and killed every soul except
herself and three other young women. Her father, mother, and husband
were in the same tent with her, and they were all killed. Her child,
of about five months old, she took with her, wrapped in a bundle of
her clothing, undiscovered, in the night. But, when arrived at the
place where the Arathapescows had left their wives, which was not far
off, it being then day-break, these Indian women immediately began to
examine her bundle; and having there found the child, took it from her
and killed it immediately. The relation of this shocking scene only
served the savages of my gang for laughter. _Her country is so far to
the Westward_, that she says she never saw any iron, or other kind of
metal, till taken prisoner; those of her tribe making their hatchets
and chisels of deers’ horns, and knives of stone and bone; their
arrows are shod with a kind of slate, bones, and deers’ horns; and
their instruments, to make their wood work, are nothing but beavers’
teeth. They have frequently heard of the useful materials the nations
to the east of them are supplied with from the English; but, instead
of drawing nearer to be in the way of trading for iron work, &c. are
obliged to retreat farther back, to avoid the Arathapescow Indians, as
they make surprising slaughter amongst them every year, both winter
and summer. HEARNE’s MS. Journal.

Footnote 51:

Journal of a Voyage in 1775 by Don Francisco Antonio Maurelle, in Mr.
Barrington’s Miscellanies, p. 508.

Footnote 52:

_Ibid._ p. 507. We learn from Maurelle’s Journal that another voyage
had been some time before performed upon the coast of America; but the
utmost northern progress of it was to latitude 55.

Footnote 53:

Dr. Campbell, speaking of Beering’s voyage in 1741, says, “Nothing can
be plainer than this truth, that his discovery does not warrant any
such supposition, as that the country he touched at was a great
continent making part of North America.”

Footnote 54:

See Coxe’s Russian Discoveries, pp. 26, 27, &c. The fictions of
speculative geographers in the Southern hemisphere, have been
continents; in the northern hemisphere, they have been seas. It may be
observed, therefore, that if Captain Cook in his first voyages
annihilated imaginary southern lands, he has made amends for the
havock in his third voyage, by annihilating imaginary northern seas,
and filling up the vast space, which had been allotted to them, with
the solid continents of his new discoveries of American land farther
west and north than had hitherto been traced.

Footnote 55:

The Russians seem to owe much to England in matters of this sort. It
is singular enough that one of our countrymen, Dr. Campbell [See his
edition of Harris’s voyages, vol. ii. p. 1021.] has preserved many
valuable particulars of Beering’s first voyage, of which Muller
himself, the historian of their earlier discoveries, makes no mention;
that it should be another of our countrymen, Mr. Coxe, who first
published a satisfactory account of their later discoveries; and that
the King of Great Britain’s ships should traverse the globe in 1778,
to confirm to the Russian empire the possession of near thirty
degrees, or above six hundred miles of continent, which Mr. Engel, in
his zeal for the practicability of a north-east passage, would prune
away from the length of Asia to the eastward. See his _Mémoires
Geographiques_, &c. Lausanne, 1765; which, however, contains much real
information; and many parts of which are confirmed by Captain Cook’s
American discoveries.

Footnote 56:

See Maupertuis’s Letter to the King of Prussia. The author of the
Preliminary Discourse to Bougainville’s _Voyage aux Isles Malouines_,
computes that the southern continent (for the existence of which, he
owns, we must depend more on the conjectures of philosophers, than on
the testimony of voyagers) contains eight or ten millions of square
leagues.

Footnote 57:

See Vol. III. p. 107.

Footnote 58:

Messrs. Hodges and Webber.

Footnote 59:

Mr. Green, in the Endeavour; Messrs. Wales and Bayly, in the
Resolution and Adventure; Mr. Bayly, a second time, jointly with
Captains Cook and King in this voyage; and Mr. Lyons, who accompanied
Lord Mulgrave. The observations of Messrs. Wales and Bayly during
Captain Cook’s second voyage are already in the hands of the public,
by the favour of the Board of Longitude; and those of Captains Cook
and King, and Mr. Bayly, during this last, will appear immediately
after our publication. [First Edit.]

Footnote 60: